Appeal No. 2001-0646
Application No. 09/227,935
With respect to claims 2 and 4, Appellants argue (Brief at
page 9) that “[c]laims 2 and 4 are dependent from claim 1 and
further require that the side wall film is a nitride film (claim
2) or either a polysilicon film or amorphous silicon film (claim
4). None of the Office Actions has addressed these claim
requirements.” However, we find that the Examiner has given an
explanation at pages 5 and 8 of the Examiner’s Answer where the
Examiner has shown in Kuroda the recited silicon nitride film
(20) and the polycrystalline silicon side wall (21A), as recited
in these claims.
Therefore, we also sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 2 and 4 over the admitted prior art in view of Kuroda.
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2 and
4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007